#318 Webinar Recap and More; Funding Freeze Blocked; Supreme Court Order; NYT Editorials; +

In This Issue #318

·       Recap of Webinar on Fair Housing Rights & Alien Land Laws

·       Upcoming Webinars on China Initiative and Racial Profiling

·       Judge Blocks Trump's Funding Freeze

·       Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Order on USAID

·       NYT Editorials on Elon Musk and Rule of Law

·       News and Activities for the Communities

Recap of Webinar on Fair Housing Rights & Alien Land Laws

The Committee of 100 and APA Justice co-hosted the second webinar of a series on Fair Housing Rights & Alien Land Laws on March 4, 2025.  Video of the event is posted at https://bit.ly/3EOqGke (54:13).The webinar examined the impact of nationality-based homeownership restrictions on real estate professionals and homebuyers, particularly within the Chinese American community. Real estate professionals and advocates are actively pushing back against these discriminatory policies. This webinar offered valuable insights into how these restrictions are reshaping the housing market and what actions can be taken to challenge them.John Trasviña, Former HUD Assistant Secretary for the Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity moderated a conversation with Scott Chang, Senior Counsel for The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) and Hope Atuel, Executive Director at Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA). The panel introduced the Fair Housing Act and held an engaging Q&A session with the audience. 

The Committee of 100 released an update of its interactive tracker on land ownership restriction laws, highlighting that 28 states are currently considering 82 bills that would restrict foreign property ownership. In 2024 alone, 17 land ownership restriction bills was passed into state law. APA Justice maintains a web page on the history and continuing developments on Alien Land Bills.Read the Northwest Asian Weekly report on the webinar: https://bit.ly/41ymVHn. Watch the first webinar on The Impact of Land Ownership Exclusion Laws on Diverse Communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfjrVAZrjj8 (1:00:56).

Upcoming Webinars on China Initiative and Racial Profiling

1. 03/12 MSU Webinar: The China Initiative

On March 12, 2025, please join the webinar hosted by Michigan State University's Asian Pacific American Studies Program for an insightful discussion of the past and present of the China Initiative, a Trump administration program that targeted Asian American scholars and researchers for investigation and prosecution.  Dr. Lok Siu of UC Berkeley and Dr. Jeremy Wu of APA Justice will speak at the event moderated by Dr. Kent Weber of Michigan State University.Register to attend: https://bit.ly/4hVaITO

2. 03/21 SFU Webinar: Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America

WHAT: Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North AmericaWHEN: March 21, 2025, 4:00 pm-6:30 pm PT/7:00 pm-9:30 pm ETWHERE: Hybrid event

·       In Person: Room 7000, SFU Vancouver Harbor Centre Campus, 515 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Canada

·       Webinar via Zoom

HOST: Simon Fraser University, Labor Studies ProgramModerator: Dr. Xinying Hu, Simon Fraser UniversitySpeaker:  Dr. Anming Hu, University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleDiscussants:

·       Dr. Jane Wang, University of British Columbia

·       Dr. Jie Yang, Simon Fraser University

DESCRIPTION: Join us for an important discussion on the case of Dr. Anming Hu, a respected scientist who was wrongfully targeted under the previous Trump administration’s China Initiative. Dr. Hu’s case highlights critical issues of racial profiling, academic freedom, and the growing surveillance of scholars in North America.

This event will feature insights into Dr. Anming Hu’s case and experience, the broader implications for researchers of Chinese origin, and the fight for justice in academia in North America. We will also discuss what universities, scholars, and policymakers can do to protect academic integrity and prevent future injustices.REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3Fd11SD

Judge Blocks Trump's Funding Freeze

According to AP News and multiple media reports, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell for the District of Rhode Island has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from freezing grants and loans potentially amounting to trillions of dollars. The lawsuit, State of New York v. Trump (1:25-cv-00039), brought by nearly two dozen Democratic states, challenges the Trump administration’s sweeping pause on federal spending, which has caused confusion and uncertainty nationwide.In his ruling, Judge McConnell found that the executive branch had placed itself above Congress by imposing a categorical spending freeze without legislative approval, stating that such an action “undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government.” He asserted that the executive branch cannot impose a categorical funding freeze without explicit congressional authorization. Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha condemned the administration’s actions, arguing that the president’s move sought to subvert the rule of law and override the separation of powers.

The funding freeze has impacted a wide range of programs, including critical services such as disaster relief, clean water access, and law enforcement funding. Democratic attorneys general have argued that the freeze has put critical services at risk, including law enforcement funding, healthcare, and childcare. Although the Trump administration rescinded a memo outlining the freeze, states, universities, and nonprofits report that federal agencies continue to withhold funds.Despite earlier court orders, Judge McConnell noted that federal agencies still appeared to be defying his directives. As part of his ruling, he instructed FEMA to submit a status report by March 14 detailing its compliance with the order. The case also raises broader constitutional questions about presidential power over congressionally appropriated funds, with Trump advocating for the Supreme Court to strike down the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Another federal judge, Loren AliKhan, has also extended an injunction against the freeze in a separate case brought by nonprofit groups and small businesses, National Council of Nonprofits v. Office of Management and Budget (1:25-cv-00239) . The rulings mark a significant judicial rebuke of the Trump administration’s efforts to exert control over congressionally appropriated funds.

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump Order on USAID

As of March 8, 2025, the number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump's executive actions reported by the Just Security Litigation Tracker has grown to 113 with one closed case.The Trump administration issued an executive order on January 20, 2025, pausing foreign development aid for 90 days, leading to stop-work orders for USAID grants. Two nonprofits, AVAC and JDN, sued, arguing the order was unlawful and harmed their operations. They filed a lawsuit, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. United States Department of State (1:25-cv-00400), and sought an injunction and restoration of funding.On February 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) in this case and Global Health Council v. Donald J. Trump (1:25-cv-00402), blocking the blanket suspension but not fully overturning the executive order. Plaintiffs later accused the government of noncompliance. The court partially enforced the TRO but did not hold the government in contempt.Further litigation led to a February 25 ruling requiring the administration to pay outstanding invoices and ensure future payments. The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit and later the Supreme Court, but both rejected its motions. 

According to the New York Times on March 5,  the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s emergency request to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. Though the ruling’s language was cautious, it effectively signaled skepticism toward Trump’s plans to reshape government. The court upheld a lower court’s order requiring payments for pre-approved foreign aid projects. The administration had tried to delay compliance, arguing for a case-by-case review. The Supreme Court’s ruling lifted a temporary stay, meaning the government must now follow through on the payments.According to a separate report by the New York Times on the same day, despite the Supreme Court ruling, uncertainty remains for humanitarian and development organizations.  For weeks, the administration has sought to dismantle USAID, canceling over 90% of contracts and halting payments for completed work. Thousands of NGOs and companies remain in limbo.

While the lawsuit’s plaintiffs argue the ruling should restore all foreign aid, the administration insists it has the authority to restructure or eliminate the agency.

NYT Editorials on Elon Musk and Rule of Law

1. 2025/03/08 Musk Doesn’t Understand Why Government Matters

Excerpts from the New York Times editorial:"Elon Musk’s life is a great American success story. Time and again, he has anticipated where the world was headed, helping to create not just new products but new industries. "But Mr. Musk’s fortune rests on more than his individual talent. He built his business empire in a nation with a stable political system and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, and he built it on a foundation of federal subsidies, loans and contracts. Mr. Musk’s companies have received at least $38 billion in government support, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. NASA has invested more than $15 billion in SpaceX; Tesla has collected $11 billion in subsidies to bolster the electric car industry."Now, as an influential adviser to President Trump, Mr. Musk is lawlessly tearing down parts of the very government that enabled his rise. "Mr. Musk claims that the government is a business in need of disruption and that his goal is to eliminate waste and improve efficiency."But DOGE is not building a better government. Instead, its haphazard demolition campaign is undermining the basic work of government and the safety and welfare of the American people.

"Even worse is that Mr. Musk, with Mr. Trump’s support, has demonstrated a disregard for the limits that the Constitution places on the president’s power."But in their campaign to shrink the federal government, Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump have defied laws passed by Congress, and they have challenged the authority of the federal courts to adjudicate the legality of their actions. Mr. Trump recently referred to himself as a king and then insisted he had been joking, but there is no ambiguity in his assertion of the power to defy other branches of government. It is a rejection of the checks and balances that have safeguarded our nation for more than 200 years. Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump are not trying to change laws; they are upending the rule of law."Businesses can take risks in pursuit of profit because it’s OK if they fail. Americans can’t afford for the basic functions of government to fail. "The stability of the nation’s laws, and of the government’s role, has caused frustration throughout American history. It is also a kind of secret sauce, facilitating the private-sector investment and risk taking that are the wellspring of the nation’s prosperity."That stability is now under assault. 

"Mr. Musk has made clear that he holds caution in contempt. But the president, whose power Mr. Musk is wielding, should listen to those in his party who are raising concerns about Mr. Musk’s methods and priorities. There are already signs that the chaos is hurting the economy. Inflation expectations have risen; stock prices have tumbled."Americans like to take risks; to do so, they need a government that is steady and reliable."

2. 2025/03/08 The One Question That Really Matters: If Trump Defies the Courts, Then What?

According to an Opinion published by the New York Times, the future of American constitutional democracy may hinge on whether President Donald Trump and his administration comply with court orders.Federal judges have issued numerous rulings against Trump’s policies, but the administration has already ignored some of them. With over 100 legal challenges pending, the Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court’s order to release frozen foreign aid, while another judge forced the release of billions in funds to states. However, the judiciary lacks enforcement power, and if the executive branch refuses to comply, the courts are left powerless. Trump and his allies, including Vice President JD Vance, have suggested that executive authority should not be constrained by judicial rulings, while some Republicans have called for the impeachment of judges who rule against the administration. The push to remove judges over policy disagreements is unprecedented and contradicts past conservative reliance on the courts to block Democratic policies.

Historically, presidents have complied with court rulings, even when they strongly disagreed. Franklin Roosevelt accepted Supreme Court decisions striking down parts of the New Deal, Harry Truman obeyed a ruling against his steel mill seizure, and Richard Nixon turned over the White House tapes despite the consequences. However, the Trump administration has sent mixed signals on whether it will follow court mandates, with Trump stating he abides by the courts but also claiming that actions taken in the name of saving the country cannot be illegal. If Trump defies judicial authority, enforcement mechanisms are limited—officials could be held in contempt, but he could pardon them, and federal marshals enforcing civil contempt orders fall under his control. With Congress unlikely to impeach him, Trump could evade accountability, setting up a constitutional crisis that tests whether the United States will continue to function under the rule of law."Perhaps public opinion will turn against the president and he will back down and comply. Or perhaps, after 238 years, we will see the end of government under the rule of law," the Opinion concludes.

Author of the Opinion is Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law at the University of California and the author of the book “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

News and Activities for the Communities

1. APA Justice Community Calendar

Upcoming Events:2025/03/12 MSU Webinar on China Initiative2025/03/16 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/03/21 Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America2025/03/30 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/04/13 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 

# # # 

APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community.  For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org. We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org.